Gladstones Letter Before Claim Oct 2018 - How should I respond?

StubbornGoat

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

The issue date is 22 Feb 2019 and yes it came from County Court Business Centre, Northampton

SG

KeithP

StubbornGoat wrote: »

The issue date is 22 Feb 2019 and yes it came from County Court Business Centre, Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd February, you have until Wednesday 13th March to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

StubbornGoat

Thanks KeithP

AoS complete. Now to start putting together my defence...

SG

StubbornGoat

AAAHHH flip - I have just gone back to check correspondence with Gladstones and UKCPM, to get my defense together and have JUST noticed that there were extra attachments to the previous reply from Gladstones which I missed. And I think I have well and truly shot myself in the foot. Despite my wife being the driver which I did end up admitting (rightly or wrongly), as mentioned in an email to them in January 2017 - I have just noticed that I used the words I parked in a Visitor Bay on a number of occasions in my initial appeals (I completely forgot about). I did not literally mean ME, but I felt that as I was the one writing, I naturally refered to the incident in the first person, also assuming naively that had they noticed the VP photos, the PCN would be cancelled.

Anyway, here are the attachments....


My 1st appeal:

https://i.postimg.cc/vHLPvR6g/24-May-2016-appeal-letter.png
https://i.postimg.cc/x1f6xsKs/24-May-2016-appeal-letter-photos.png

They send formal notice...

https://i.postimg.cc/m2GXMZhW/21-June-2016.png

... before replying to my 1st appeal:

https://i.postimg.cc/dQCNLZs9/18-July-2016-part-1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/yx0L5tQG/18-July-2016-part-2.png


My 2nd appeal:

https://i.postimg.cc/D05X8c8Z/11-Nov-2016-appeal-letter.png

Their 2nd reply:

https://i.postimg.cc/3RsLtYBp/11-Nov-2016.png

They also included a FAQs form PDF, a Pre-Action Protocols For debt Claims PDF, The inital PCN and the LBC.


At this moment in time, I feel rubbish, and annoyed at myself in not noticing these attachments initially (with there being 11, it was under the "see more attachments link". Plus I know so much more about fighting these scammers now, but I feel I scored an Own Goal early on.

Do I have a leg to stand on?

SG

Coupon-mad

I have also already told them (before I found this forum) that I was not the one driving, it was my wife who was driving and to transfer the liability... however they simply responded that it was now with debt recovery plus.

Do you have a copy of that correspondence and did they not supply that as evidence, too?

You can copy a defence that mentions PACE v Lengyel and VCS v Quayle which are both transcripts available from the Parking Prankster's 'More Case Law' page, and they can be filed later in support of your case at WS stage.

Is this another site in Sussex, if so, where? I'd like to look on Google StreetView.

StubbornGoat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do you have a copy of that correspondence and did they not supply that as evidence, too?

It's in an email to UKCPM

https://i.postimg.cc/Y0HmbCvJ/correspondence-to-UKCPM-notifying-wife-as-driver.png

Is this another site in Sussex, if so, where? I'd like to look on Google StreetView.

I'm afraid not, this was back when we lived in Hertfordshire.

Coupon-mad

OK, but as you didn't give the driver's name and address for service, you never did transfer liability so it stays with you, under the POFA (except that you are arguing 'inadequate signage' and no 'relevant contract/obligation' and those arguments lead to a point that there is no 'keeper liability' possible, as those matters are pre-requisites in Schedule 4.

Your defence should state you were not the driver and that the Claimant knows this, at the start.

Use bargepole's concise defence example and copy in some words you find from other defences about PACE v Lengyel and/or VCS v Quayle.

StubbornGoat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, but as you didn't give the driver's name and address for service, you never did transfer liability so it stays with you, under the POFA (except that you are arguing 'inadequate signage' and no 'relevant contract/obligation' and those arguments lead to a point that there is no 'keeper liability' possible, as those matters are pre-requisites in Schedule 4.

Your defence should state you were not the driver and that the Claimant knows this, at the start.

Use bargepole's concise defence example and copy in some words you find from other defences about PACE v Lengyel and/or VCS v Quayle.

Just to be sure, you mean this defense example: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74674865&postcount=24 ?

Thank you again for your help and advice.

SG

Coupon-mad

Yes, so you'd just need to put right the typo in that example 'prorpietary' and then make the points I mentioned in a couple of added points near the start.

StubbornGoat

Hows this for first draft? (PS. I have read through the 2 case files you mentioned, but could not see where anything from them would add to the defence by Bargepole - unless I missed something?)

Anyway what do you reckon?...

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle, registration XXXX and the Claimant knows this as the Defendant informed the Claimant of this on 13th January 2017.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper (the car has since been sold), was parked on the material date in a Visitor Parking (VP) marked bay which was different to the allocated parking bays.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "as the driver/keeper of the vehicle(s)". These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim state "The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so" - this is completely false.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There was also no sign at the entrance to the car park and all other signs were half way up a lamp post (which have since been lowered, indicating acknowledgement by the Claimant that these signs were inadequate)

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date